You know, the problem with your argument (and similar arguments deniers make) is that you hold on to ONE little bit of information that may or may not be false/true, and run with it. That because (you believe) that there is not fossil record,(some disagree) that all the other evidence to support Evolution must also be wrong. You are going on the assumption that because they (may not) have found a dye in the wool link between two fossils showing evolution, that everything else is BS too.. in that case, again, throw away most of modern scientific breakthroughs.. most were based on theory before they became fact. Fortunately for evolution, there are other evidences for it. READ & FIND OUT. ...

You know, the problem with your argument (and similar arguments deniers make) is that you hold on to ONE little bit of information that may or may not be false/true, and run with it. That because (you believe) that there is not fossil record,(some disagree) that all the other evidence to support Evolution must also be wrong. You are going on the assumption that because they (may not) have found a dye in the wool link between two fossils showing evolution, that everything else is BS too.. in that case, again, throw away most of modern scientific breakthroughs.. most were based on theory before they became fact. Fortunately for evolution, there are other evidences for it. READ & FIND OUT. A simple Google search or trip to your public library/university will give you the knowledge you seem to have not found yet.

Just because they (my not) have found a link, doesn't men it doesn't exist.

Here, I'll give you a head start.. here are references that back my statements:
* Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution (nap.edu - National Academies of Science)
* Evolution and the Fossil Record (agiweb.org - American Geological Institute)

I would like to address two things, one from the first link.

"Today, many of the gaps
in the paleontological record have been filled by the research of
paleontologists."

Could this posibly be refering to the coelacnth, Atchaeopteryx, Hyracotherium (later renamed Eohippus), Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ramapithecus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthal Man, and Cro-Magnon Man?

That because (you believe) that there is not fossil record,(some
disagree) that all the other evidence to support Evolution must also be
wrong.

Paleontologists have found fossils of animals that are alive to day and fossils of animals that were alive in the past. Th...

I would like to address two things, one from the first link.

"Today, many of the gaps
in the paleontological record have been filled by the research of
paleontologists."

Could this posibly be refering to the coelacnth, Atchaeopteryx, Hyracotherium (later renamed Eohippus), Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ramapithecus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthal Man, and Cro-Magnon Man?

That because (you believe) that there is not fossil record,(some
disagree) that all the other evidence to support Evolution must also be
wrong.

Paleontologists have found fossils of animals that are alive to day and fossils of animals that were alive in the past. Therefor, there should also be fossils of animals that conect the two. But why have none been found? If you think there are any, then please give me examples.

Untill these "missing links" are found, however, evolution cannot be fact, which is "a truth known by actual experience or observation." Evolution has not occured within the period of modern science, so at best it can only be a theory (which it currenly is not).

~* {FS} *~

Let me stick with the definition of evolution as defined by tpq: the progress of life from simple to complex by means of random mutations and natural selection. This is Macro-evolution, a combination of Micro-evolution and vast amounts of time.

Macro-evolution requires the following
1. Beneficial mutations.
2. These mutations must be hereditary.
3. They must occur in a specific order with no room for deviation.
4. Finally, these mutations must occur over and over again through a period of millions of years.

To conclude, there is just to small of a percentage that is required to repeat to many times. Like flipping a coin and needing it to land heads up 1000 times in a row.

Macro-evoluti...

Let me stick with the definition of evolution as defined by tpq: the progress of life from simple to complex by means of random mutations and natural selection. This is Macro-evolution, a combination of Micro-evolution and vast amounts of time.

Macro-evolution requires the following
1. Beneficial mutations.
2. These mutations must be hereditary.
3. They must occur in a specific order with no room for deviation.
4. Finally, these mutations must occur over and over again through a period of millions of years.

To conclude, there is just to small of a percentage that is required to repeat to many times. Like flipping a coin and needing it to land heads up 1000 times in a row.

Macro-evolution cannot explain the presence of instinct.

Or, on the other hand, how language, which is not instinctual, even exists in the first place.

Nor can it explain the lack of 2, 3, 4, or 5 celled life forms. 6-20 celled life forms are parasites, meaning they must have a host and could not have existed before more complex life evolved.

Then there is your favorite, the "one piece of evidence" we creationists "take and run with." Yes, I'm going to bring this one up again, and will continue to do so until you actually address it rather than trying to point at all the other "evidence." Because IF Macro-evolution as outlined above were possible, WHERE IS THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE??

We have HUNDREDS (not literal) of dinosaur fossils and HUNDREDS (again, not literal) of bird fossils, yet NO fossils linking the two!

Now I know the proses of making a fossil is very specific, but we're talking about supposed MILLIONS of years! Surly there would have been ONE made!

And on the topic of vast amounts of time, evolutionists still cannot explain why, in rock layers supposedly representing millions of years, they find trees embedded vertically in the rock. Also, the earth's sedimentary layers would not be parallel if they were formed very slowly, due to faster erosion rates.

~* {FS} *~

You have not once told me why ID is incorrect beside the fact you can't believe in a god (which is personal, not scientific). Neither have you explained how evolution can still be possible in light of the problems I have pointed out.

To you evolution is a religion, a way to convince yourself that God does not have to exist for us to be here. You don't care about scientific evidence, you don't care about the facts, otherwise you would show me the scientific evidence and the facts that provide evidence for evolution, and not just say "They exist, they exist, they exist."

And as for the Bible . . .
1. There is scientific evidence of a sudden creation (as stated in the Bible).
2. There is sc...

You have not once told me why ID is incorrect beside the fact you can't believe in a god (which is personal, not scientific). Neither have you explained how evolution can still be possible in light of the problems I have pointed out.

To you evolution is a religion, a way to convince yourself that God does not have to exist for us to be here. You don't care about scientific evidence, you don't care about the facts, otherwise you would show me the scientific evidence and the facts that provide evidence for evolution, and not just say "They exist, they exist, they exist."

And as for the Bible . . .
1. There is scientific evidence of a sudden creation (as stated in the Bible).
2. There is scientific evidence of a world wide flood (as stated in the Bible).

ID is not the Bible replacing science, it's science proving the Bible.

I keep asking the same questions over and over because you keep ignoring them over and over. I'm trying to argue my point with logic and facts, while you're trying to argure yours with just your oppinion.

~* {FS} *~

I'm not sure what I was talking about before with the disappointment thing..

Regardless, I simply do not believe that every mutation would have a neutral or negative effect on an organism. It just isn't probable.

And while the certan parts of the Bible and science are mutually exclusive, the earth being created in 7 days and only existing for a few thousand years certainly does not agree with commonly accepted science (which really does not prove one or the other is right).

This debate seems unimportant to me. God wanted us to love him and our neighbors. I understand the curiosity and the need for answers, but wouldn't God be more concerned with the whole peace and love thing. I think...

I'm not sure what I was talking about before with the disappointment thing..

Regardless, I simply do not believe that every mutation would have a neutral or negative effect on an organism. It just isn't probable.

And while the certan parts of the Bible and science are mutually exclusive, the earth being created in 7 days and only existing for a few thousand years certainly does not agree with commonly accepted science (which really does not prove one or the other is right).

This debate seems unimportant to me. God wanted us to love him and our neighbors. I understand the curiosity and the need for answers, but wouldn't God be more concerned with the whole peace and love thing. I think this should be our main priority, instead of arguing over the details.

Just putting my perspective in, you guys can mull it over, embrace it, reject it, whatever. Have a nice day everyone, and maybe try not to get too upset.